Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

...a person who believes in God has every reason to believe in objective morality...

False - how ever often you repeat this falsehood. 'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur, for any agent - even a creator god.

Actually, no.

For God, as the Creator, has both the perfect right to say what His creation is for, and to say what is permissible and forbidden within those purposes.

And this is 'might makes right' - which is what theistic moral objectivism boils down to - the opposite of moral objectivism. It's moral subjectivism pretending not to be.

[Harbal]

For God, as the Creator, has both the perfect right to say what His creation is for, and to say what is permissible and forbidden within those purposes.

When we have children, which we very often bring into existence because of a conscious decision, most of us would not think that principle morally right. To create an inanimate object and think you have the right to have full authority over what is and isn't permissible during its existence is fine, but you can't, or shouldn't, do that with human beings. God (hypothetically) can do what he like, of course, because nobody can stop him, but even so, when he gets it wrong, he needs to be told.

[Harbal]

False - how ever often you repeat this falsehood. 'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur, for any agent - even a creator god.

Actually, no.

For God, as the Creator, has both the perfect right to say what His creation is for, and to say what is permissible and forbidden within those purposes.

And this is 'might makes right' - which is what theistic moral objectivism boils down to - the opposite of moral objectivism. It's moral subjectivism pretending not to be.

Authoritarianism, in other words.

[Immanuel Can]

False - how ever often you repeat this falsehood. 'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong' is a non sequitur, for any agent - even a creator god.

Actually, no.

For God, as the Creator, has both the perfect right to say what His creation is for, and to say what is permissible and forbidden within those purposes.

And this is 'might makes right'...

No, it's "Designer knows purpose." And of course he does, and only He really does. The rest of us, including you, are playing "catch up," trying to figure out what's right for us to do or be. He never gets it wrong.

That's why you can't find objective morality. You've arbitrarily banished the very grounds of morality from your thinking, and predictably, you have then decided that morality must have no grounds.

[Immanuel Can]

For God, as the Creator, has both the perfect right to say what His creation is for, and to say what is permissible and forbidden within those purposes.

When we have children, which we very often bring into existence because of a conscious decision, most of us would not think that principle morally right. To create an inanimate object and think you have the right to have full authority over what is and isn't permissible during its existence is fine, but you can't, or shouldn't, do that with human beings. God (hypothetically) can do what he like, of course, because nobody can stop him, but even so, when he gets it wrong, he needs to be told.

"Wrong"? This from somebody who insists there is no objective "wrongness" to anything at all, but it's all just subjective? It's not at all clear what you can mean by that, since you don't acknowledge any moral objective values. You can't mean that God is objectively "wrong." Maybe you only mean "Harbal no like."

But as you see with children, what we do is give them a measure of autonomy and a measure of regulation, according to their maturity and need. But a combination of autonomy and regulation persists even into adulthood, when we have more autonomy, as reality always regulates us to some degree. We're never without the two. And absent one, we're dehumanized: an unfree human is alienated from his humanity; but so is one that has no regulation...he's lost in solipsism, unreality and anomie.

If you give children only one or the other, -- only autonomy, or only regulation -- then you're either a negligent parent or a tyrannical one; but in both cases, you're abusive.

And what does God give us? Moral direction plus moral autonomy. Sounds like very good parenting, to me.

[Harbal]

For God, as the Creator, has both the perfect right to say what His creation is for, and to say what is permissible and forbidden within those purposes.

When we have children, which we very often bring into existence because of a conscious decision, most of us would not think that principle morally right. To create an inanimate object and think you have the right to have full authority over what is and isn't permissible during its existence is fine, but you can't, or shouldn't, do that with human beings. God (hypothetically) can do what he like, of course, because nobody can stop him, but even so, when he gets it wrong, he needs to be told.

"Wrong"? This from somebody who insists there is no objective "wrongness" to anything at all, but it's all just subjective?

Of course it's subjective. No action or event can contain wrongness; it is something that only exists in our minds.

It's not at all clear what you can mean by that, since you don't acknowledge any moral objective values.

I acknowledge subjective values, though. It means that I disapprove of God's conduct. If morality were objective, you would be forced to disapprove of it, too.

You can't mean that God is objectively "wrong." Maybe you only mean "Harbal no like."

Well that would be more relevant to me than, "God no like".

But as you see with children, what we do is give them a measure of autonomy and a measure of regulation, according to their maturity and need. But a combination of autonomy and regulation persists even into adulthood, when we have more autonomy, as reality always regulates us to some degree. We're never without the two. And absent one, we're dehumanized: an unfree human is alienated from his humanity; but so is one that has no regulation...he's lost in solipsism, unreality and anomie.

If you give children only one or the other, -- only autonomy, or only regulation -- then you're either a negligent parent or a tyrannical one; but in both cases, you're abusive.

And what does God give us? Moral direction plus moral autonomy. Sounds like very good parenting, to me.

Don't you ever get tired of having to make excuses for him?

[Harbal]

That's why you can't find objective morality. You've arbitrarily banished the very grounds of morality from your thinking, and predictably, you have then decided that morality must have no grounds.

Morality is following your own ethical values. Abiding by those of someone else, including God, is just obedience, not morality.

[Immanuel Can]

When we have children, which we very often bring into existence because of a conscious decision, most of us would not think that principle morally right. To create an inanimate object and think you have the right to have full authority over what is and isn't permissible during its existence is fine, but you can't, or shouldn't, do that with human beings. God (hypothetically) can do what he like, of course, because nobody can stop him, but even so, when he gets it wrong, he needs to be told.

"Wrong"? This from somebody who insists there is no objective "wrongness" to anything at all, but it's all just subjective?

Of course it's subjective. No action or event can contain wrongness; it is something that only exists in our minds.

So it "exists in your mind" that you have a feeling of not liking what you (incorrectly) say God does? That's it? That's what you meant when you said "he's wrong"?

That's not a charge that anybody needs to take very seriously, is it?

It's not at all clear what you can mean by that, since you don't acknowledge any moral objective values.

I acknowledge subjective values, though. It means that I disapprove of God's conduct.

Yes, that's what I said it meant.

But if "that's wrong" only means "Harbal doesn't like," then it's just the contingent feeling of one person. Nobody needs to agree, or even should; and God is not being indicted of anything bad.

I can't believe you meant so little...but if you say that's all you meant, then I guess that's all you meant.

If morality were objective, you would be forced to disapprove of it, too.

Right. So you're not expecting me to have to agree with your "disapproval" of God's alleged conduct...you're just saying, "Harbal no like, but you can like whatever you want, and so can everybody else."

But as you see with children, what we do is give them a measure of autonomy and a measure of regulation, according to their maturity and need. But a combination of autonomy and regulation persists even into adulthood, when we have more autonomy, as reality always regulates us to some degree. We're never without the two. And absent one, we're dehumanized: an unfree human is alienated from his humanity; but so is one that has no regulation...he's lost in solipsism, unreality and anomie.

If you give children only one or the other, -- only autonomy, or only regulation -- then you're either a negligent parent or a tyrannical one; but in both cases, you're abusive.

And what does God give us? Moral direction plus moral autonomy. Sounds like very good parenting, to me.

Don't you ever get tired of having to make excuses for him?

As soon as you stop attacking Him, I don't have to explain why you're off base. But it's really my job, as a Christian, to make sure you are properly acquainted with what God says and does, so much as any human can. So you're free to quit complaining about Him anytime, and I have a different set of responsibilities to fulfill...objectively.

[Skepdick]

That's why you can't find objective morality. You've arbitrarily banished the very grounds of morality from your thinking, and predictably, you have then decided that morality must have no grounds.

Morality is following your own ethical values. Abiding by those of someone else, including God, is just obedience, not morality.

Following values is still following.

Obedience. Following. Potato/potatoh

But should we draw attention to the anthropomorphism?

Your values lead so you follow?

Lol.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is following your own ethical values.

No, that's solipsism, or even narcissism.

Even in secular thought, we can certainly realize that ethical values are shared properties of human societies, not "your own." And because they govern relations among and between people, not simply what you do to yourself, they're other people's concern as well as yours.

Morality is a common code regulating interactions among the various entities that count in the moral equation: between you and your duty to self-care, between you and your neighbour, between you and your community, between you and your nation, and between you and your Maker. It's not "following your own ethical values".

That's a mere conceit of our very solipsitic and narcissistic social ethos. It's not at all even logical. For how can Harbal "owe" Harbal to do anything at all? Harbal himself is a limited, contingent, temporary being. From where comes his "duty" to treat himself in any way at all? What "dignifies" his existence, since he regards himself as the mere accidental product of an utterly indifferent universe? Who will call Harbal to account if he does anything to himself, or fails to do anything to himself? Where's the "morality" in any of that?

In fact, Biblically, what you're describing is not courageous or lofty at all. As it says, "All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have, every one of us, turned to his own way..." (Isaiah 53:6) That's not a recommendation; it's a moral condemnation of our selfishness, waywardness and smugness.

[Harbal]

"Wrong"? This from somebody who insists there is no objective "wrongness" to anything at all, but it's all just subjective?

Of course it's subjective. No action or event can contain wrongness; it is something that only exists in our minds.

So it "exists in your mind" that you have a feeling of not liking what you (incorrectly) say God does? That's it? That's what you meant when you said "he's wrong"?

That's not a charge that anybody needs to take very seriously, is it?

Actually, it's what you say God does that I don't like; God doesn't do anything, of course. And did I say that I expect anyone to take it seriously?

Yes, that's what I said it meant.

But if "that's wrong" only means "Harbal doesn't like," then it's just the contingent feeling of one person. Nobody needs to agree, or even should; and God is not being indicted of anything bad.

It's my personal criticism of God's conduct, and others are free to agree or disagree.

If morality were objective, you would be forced to disapprove of it, too.

Right. So you're not expecting me to have to agree with your "disapproval" of God's alleged conduct...you're just saying, "Harbal no like, but you can like whatever you want, and so can everybody else."

In essence, yes, that's correct.

Don't you ever get tired of having to make excuses for him?

As soon as you stop attacking Him, I don't have to explain why you're off base. But it's really my job, as a Christian, to make sure you are properly acquainted with what God says and does,

I was just following orders; just doing my job.

[Harbal]

Morality is following your own ethical values.

No, that's solipsism, or even narcissism.

Having an ethical approach to your dealings and interactions with other people is neither solipsistic nor narcissistic.

Even in secular thought, we can certainly realize that ethical values are shared properties of human societies, not "your own." And because they govern relations among and between people, not simply what you do to yourself, they're other people's concern as well as yours.

Morality is a common code regulating interactions among the various entities that count in the moral equation: between you and your duty to self-care, between you and your neighbour, between you and your community, between you and your nation, and between you and your Maker. It's not "following your own ethical values".

Yes, I can broadly go along with that, but the values within any community can vary, and even conflict, so you are painting a rather simplistic picture.

In fact, Biblically,

I'm going to have to stop you there, I'm afraid; I don't do biblical.

[Skepdick]

I was just following orders; just doing my job.

Hitler was just following his values too.

[Harbal]

I was just following orders; just doing my job.

Hitler was just following his values too.

Yes, but he wasn't following orders, he was giving them.

[Skepdick]

I was just following orders; just doing my job.

Hitler was just following his values too.

Yes, but he wasn't following orders, he was giving them.

Not sure what difference it makes whether you are following orders; or following your values when you commit genocide.

You were doing your job.
Hitler was doing his calling.